It is obviously a cliche to say "the lead was so bad I rooted for the bad guy" but with Creed 2 that was exactly how I felt and I strongly believe I was not the only one feeling such. The father-son Drago's story was much more interesting and they had everything to fight for while Adonis Creed had none. And the story also doesnt help, superficial and forced. There is more drama than action, more character study than fights however it still manages to be one of the most unrealistic boxing movies that I have ever watched. Sly seems bored; actually Dolph was the best actor in this movie, go figure..
Reviews
19 Reviews
What would be your tactic?
2 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I do share all the frustration shown by fans over this episode however i also have one question. What would be the best way to use the Dothrakis effectively? I mean you cant have the cavalry wait in the back, the horses would cause chaos once the wights attack; you cant have them wait in line with infantry either, that would give no advantage and probably they would crush friend and foe a like. Maybe have them flank the wights while their initial attack but the lay of the battlefield seemed not that suitable for this. Of course I am no general and I agree its stupid to send in the cavalry without any backup or after plan but I wonder whether there would be a better way to use Dothrakis to full effect?
Taksim Hold'em
(2017)
Masks of the masses
25 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
We all still remember the optimisim that swept through the intellectual and academic circles following the Arap spring. In that regard, a fact interesting enough to mention is that there were very few movies in the last years that dealt with the phenomenon that is 'Arap Spring' other than documenting the factual incidents and their historical/political context. It seems that there is a rising tendency in such countries to address political and social issues mostly in terms of an idealized expectation of what an individual and society shall look like. Is more politicization the way for individual emancipation? Do we really need more pressure groups, lobbies, political movements, NGOs, hashtags in order to be politically participative? In order to have a persona of our own, do we need to be a part of a hive of alike personas? In a time where gender roles are re-considered, the talk of fluidity of sex/gender is topical - and rightly so- can't we just be our, idiosyncratic, 'political' persons? Not easy questions to answer...Still, even the talk of such issues must be considered as a big step foward.
This little gem of a movie appropriately named, Taksim Hold'em, although a satire on the surface, also subtly provides a surprisingly strong commentary on those recent ideas & 'movements' (probably thats the reason it had travelled a lot of international film festivals before opening in movie theathers) in the form of casual conservations amongst a group of friends who decided to play poker on a weekend night in the wake of mass government protests which were taking place in Taksim square, Turkey (hence the name Taksim Hold'em). Turkey is obviously no Tunisia and the inspiration behind the movie, '2013 'Gezi protests' which were actually environmentalist in essence, was no Arap Spring. However, that is of little importance and the script is clever enough to rise above specific localized pecularities. Actually "Taksim Hold'em" is about Gezi protests as much as it is about Arap Spring or any other recent anti-something movements. It is also about human condition and the lies we keep on saying to others and to ourselves: that we all are civilized, we respect law & order, we believe in justice -or karma-, we discriminate noone, we are fearless when facing danger, we care about the welfare of others (as long as they look like us or are at least cute enough) and while we are model citizens it is all the other people who corrupt what is inherently good. However one important note; Taksim Hold'em is not taking any sides even when the pretentiousness of the characters' intentions become obvious. "i dont respect anybody's opinions, not even mine' says our protagonist Alper; a sentiment which will find its counterpart in his childhood friend Altan's words: "I respect everyone's opinion, but yours is just plain dumb". It is this kind of writing which makes Taksim Hold'em a joy to watch (and i am restraining myself not to quote more), not taking itself dead serious but at the same time showing a grit in tackling issues which are deep and divisive. And lets be honest here; the writing is important in such a project as is the acting because of the theatre play feel, an inevitable outcome of the closed, minimalistic setting. The whole movie takes place in the living room of a flat where some other characters pop in and out, all providing welcome additions to the ongoing conflict. In a way, the flat serves as the safe harbour of Alper, protecting him from the madness that surrounds him. This is especially evident in the opening scene where Alper irons the poker table cover with his headphones on supressing the yelling of the always fighting, lovable(!) next door couple and the increasing sounds of the protesters. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that in time, the external elements (represented by the sounds of the neigbhours and protestors) will provide for the final stage accompanied by the final conflict.
Onder, in his directorial debut, shows talent not only in writing but also in directing as the movie actually never loses pace and color/lightining wise looks really good. The cinematographer, art director and the editor should definetely share some of that praise.
All the actors give praiseworthy performances and it is their timing & delivery of the lines that give strength to the already strong script. Their characters are all fleshed out as well, near the climax we start to care (or not) about them. Special mention needs to be given to Kenan Ece for his portrayal of Alper. He is in nearly every frame of the movie and really manages to create a enduring screen presence even while wearing an odd colored bathrobe for the whole running time. His transition from indifference to vulnerability feels natural and the loss of control in the climax is an icing on the cake.
The poker buddies all-talk, no-action Altan (Emre Oksuz), supressed urban professional Kaan (Nezih Cihan Aksoy) no talk, all-action Rafi (Tansu Tasanlar) and the late 4th to the game, enigmatic Fuat (Berk Hakman) are no different either as is Alper's tamed, idealistic fiancee, Defne (Damla Sonmez). They are living, three dimensional characters; not perfectly idealized card-board talking heads or quasi-villainous figures that we all can root against, partly owing to Onder's script and partly to their own apt performancs.
The natural, real feeling of the dialogues contribute to the on-going philosophical/political discussions while always keeping the dry, witty humour. At the end, Onder gives no easy way out: do we really practice what we preach? or is the sheer satisfaction of preaching enough? One final word: One of the most important events in the last decades of Turkish history gets a treatment in a very unqiue and 'universal' way (that there is no other fiction movie on the subject is beyond me and calls for another discussion). And did i tell you that it was no Arap Spring?
This little gem of a movie appropriately named, Taksim Hold'em, although a satire on the surface, also subtly provides a surprisingly strong commentary on those recent ideas & 'movements' (probably thats the reason it had travelled a lot of international film festivals before opening in movie theathers) in the form of casual conservations amongst a group of friends who decided to play poker on a weekend night in the wake of mass government protests which were taking place in Taksim square, Turkey (hence the name Taksim Hold'em). Turkey is obviously no Tunisia and the inspiration behind the movie, '2013 'Gezi protests' which were actually environmentalist in essence, was no Arap Spring. However, that is of little importance and the script is clever enough to rise above specific localized pecularities. Actually "Taksim Hold'em" is about Gezi protests as much as it is about Arap Spring or any other recent anti-something movements. It is also about human condition and the lies we keep on saying to others and to ourselves: that we all are civilized, we respect law & order, we believe in justice -or karma-, we discriminate noone, we are fearless when facing danger, we care about the welfare of others (as long as they look like us or are at least cute enough) and while we are model citizens it is all the other people who corrupt what is inherently good. However one important note; Taksim Hold'em is not taking any sides even when the pretentiousness of the characters' intentions become obvious. "i dont respect anybody's opinions, not even mine' says our protagonist Alper; a sentiment which will find its counterpart in his childhood friend Altan's words: "I respect everyone's opinion, but yours is just plain dumb". It is this kind of writing which makes Taksim Hold'em a joy to watch (and i am restraining myself not to quote more), not taking itself dead serious but at the same time showing a grit in tackling issues which are deep and divisive. And lets be honest here; the writing is important in such a project as is the acting because of the theatre play feel, an inevitable outcome of the closed, minimalistic setting. The whole movie takes place in the living room of a flat where some other characters pop in and out, all providing welcome additions to the ongoing conflict. In a way, the flat serves as the safe harbour of Alper, protecting him from the madness that surrounds him. This is especially evident in the opening scene where Alper irons the poker table cover with his headphones on supressing the yelling of the always fighting, lovable(!) next door couple and the increasing sounds of the protesters. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that in time, the external elements (represented by the sounds of the neigbhours and protestors) will provide for the final stage accompanied by the final conflict.
Onder, in his directorial debut, shows talent not only in writing but also in directing as the movie actually never loses pace and color/lightining wise looks really good. The cinematographer, art director and the editor should definetely share some of that praise.
All the actors give praiseworthy performances and it is their timing & delivery of the lines that give strength to the already strong script. Their characters are all fleshed out as well, near the climax we start to care (or not) about them. Special mention needs to be given to Kenan Ece for his portrayal of Alper. He is in nearly every frame of the movie and really manages to create a enduring screen presence even while wearing an odd colored bathrobe for the whole running time. His transition from indifference to vulnerability feels natural and the loss of control in the climax is an icing on the cake.
The poker buddies all-talk, no-action Altan (Emre Oksuz), supressed urban professional Kaan (Nezih Cihan Aksoy) no talk, all-action Rafi (Tansu Tasanlar) and the late 4th to the game, enigmatic Fuat (Berk Hakman) are no different either as is Alper's tamed, idealistic fiancee, Defne (Damla Sonmez). They are living, three dimensional characters; not perfectly idealized card-board talking heads or quasi-villainous figures that we all can root against, partly owing to Onder's script and partly to their own apt performancs.
The natural, real feeling of the dialogues contribute to the on-going philosophical/political discussions while always keeping the dry, witty humour. At the end, Onder gives no easy way out: do we really practice what we preach? or is the sheer satisfaction of preaching enough? One final word: One of the most important events in the last decades of Turkish history gets a treatment in a very unqiue and 'universal' way (that there is no other fiction movie on the subject is beyond me and calls for another discussion). And did i tell you that it was no Arap Spring?
Hunting Season
(2010)
An average movie at best
6 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Let me start with the pros as there are not much: 1- The cinematography is really beautiful, probably one of the best in the last decade of Turkish cinema 2- the direction is also very aptly handled with a particular eye for the details 3- the main concept is also intriguing, this is not your typical 'who did it' crime thriller with lots of red herrings thrown at you that leads to a twist at the end, instead this flick aspires to be a character study with some obvious influence from 'se7en' and 'zodiac'. But unfortunately the illogical script and the 'refined' dialogues makes this an utter failure. It was like watching the screenplay being recited, something which becomes unbearable after half an hour or something. The dialogues do not sound authentic at all, they are more like a translation from English. Just one example will suffice: The veteran homicide detective answers a call by the medical examiner saying: 'give me some good news' in Turkish, a phrase that I have never heard a Turk utter, ever. There are so many plot holes and unrealistic scenes (like small-time drug dealers with semi-automatic weapons shooting randomly at police... come on)but what is more frustrating is the lack of character development for a movie that presents itself as a character study rather than a mere thriller.We never really understand why f.e. our main character 'hunter' is indeed called hunter. It is said many times that he is a legend in the homicide department because; well, he hunts the killers and always catches them. But in this case he really never does anything. He spots a car that they are looking for from 10 meters and recognizes a 500000 $ worth shotgun after recently seeing it and in the remaining time wanders aimlessly and ask questions that lead to nowhere. The writing is not different for his partner 'deli' either. He actually shows no interest in the case throughout the whole movie, even being scolded by his boss, the 'hunter', for his lack of interest. But out of the blue this case-the very same case he never seems to take serious- becomes to be the last straw in his demise. So there is no point in assessing the cast because no one could really pull of some genuine acting given such pretentious dialogues and ludicrous screenplay. And the final scene where all the plot is dictated by monologues; well let me just say that: it is an insult to the intelligence of the viewers.
Dragon Trap
(2010)
The sum of what to avoid in making a serial-killer movie
16 May 2010
Well first of all, the premise of "Ejder Kapani" which indicated a vigilante-type serial killer being loose on the streets of Istanbul seemed interesting enough taking into consideration the lack of the same genre movies being made in Turkish cinema. And although the direction, music and performances from the cast are decent enough it is the story itself that moves on the fringes of utter stupidity. Sexual offenders who have been pardoned by the government are being killed one by one and it takes like more than 10 corpses for our detectives to realize what the hell is going on. OK I get the notion that Turkish law-enforcement may not be as familiar as their US counterparts with the concept of a serial killer but still we never even get a guess from any of the officers that they may be facing a different kind of criminal.
Ugur Yucel is the best thing about the movie, his portrayal of a tired, experienced detective who reluctantly pursues his last case before retirement is very strong. His performance alone -not the dynamics of the story- prevents his character to be a stereo-type. Kenan Imirzalioglu is also good in his role as well as is Sirri Sureyya Onder who makes out the most of his limited screen time but the rest of the cast are given little to do. And this is indeed the main problem of the story itself: there are very few characters. This is a big no-no especially in such a "who did it" movie. You understand who the killer is after 10 min or something in the movie mainly because there is no alternative presented by the plot. No red herrings of any kind. And because of that the director does what he has to do: refrain from giving any hints throughout the entire story just to reveal the identity of the killer rather conveniently at the end. In my opinion this is nothing but lazy writing.
The cinematography is not bad with some interesting lightning however the backdrops of the city of Istanbul is presented pretty awkwardly. We see the Galata Bridge like 6 times during the movie which gives the impression that all roads in Istanbul somehow leads to the Galata Bridge. Even the final scene takes place there but the question remains: Why? And dot get me even started on what is the biggest let down of Ejder Kapani: A total disregard for -the not so small- details. Only one example will suffice: We see the serial killer a lot of times during the movie. He always wears a mask however there are several scenes where his height is obvious to the eye by comparison with the characters he interacts. (like the scene where he is pursued by Ugur Yucel) He seems short let alone middle-sized. But the final revelation makes you think that the killer was a real master of disguise shrinking his height like 30cm when he is on his killing spree. An unacceptable error on the part of the film-makers which treats the viewer as plain stupid.
Another problem was with the sound, especially with the volume of dialogues. I had so much difficulty in understanding most of the dialogues after some point I had to turn on the subtitles. To sum up: Ejder Kapani is a decent effort although it lacks a coherent storyline and suffers from a low-tempo. The direction is not ground-breaking although it cant be critized much either. Only the performances of Ugur Yucel & Kenan Imirzalioglu & Onder save the movie from being a total Hollywood knock-off. All three of them succeed in staying Turkish while playing characters who we have seen for so many times in American movies. I believe that deserves nothing but praise.
Ugur Yucel is the best thing about the movie, his portrayal of a tired, experienced detective who reluctantly pursues his last case before retirement is very strong. His performance alone -not the dynamics of the story- prevents his character to be a stereo-type. Kenan Imirzalioglu is also good in his role as well as is Sirri Sureyya Onder who makes out the most of his limited screen time but the rest of the cast are given little to do. And this is indeed the main problem of the story itself: there are very few characters. This is a big no-no especially in such a "who did it" movie. You understand who the killer is after 10 min or something in the movie mainly because there is no alternative presented by the plot. No red herrings of any kind. And because of that the director does what he has to do: refrain from giving any hints throughout the entire story just to reveal the identity of the killer rather conveniently at the end. In my opinion this is nothing but lazy writing.
The cinematography is not bad with some interesting lightning however the backdrops of the city of Istanbul is presented pretty awkwardly. We see the Galata Bridge like 6 times during the movie which gives the impression that all roads in Istanbul somehow leads to the Galata Bridge. Even the final scene takes place there but the question remains: Why? And dot get me even started on what is the biggest let down of Ejder Kapani: A total disregard for -the not so small- details. Only one example will suffice: We see the serial killer a lot of times during the movie. He always wears a mask however there are several scenes where his height is obvious to the eye by comparison with the characters he interacts. (like the scene where he is pursued by Ugur Yucel) He seems short let alone middle-sized. But the final revelation makes you think that the killer was a real master of disguise shrinking his height like 30cm when he is on his killing spree. An unacceptable error on the part of the film-makers which treats the viewer as plain stupid.
Another problem was with the sound, especially with the volume of dialogues. I had so much difficulty in understanding most of the dialogues after some point I had to turn on the subtitles. To sum up: Ejder Kapani is a decent effort although it lacks a coherent storyline and suffers from a low-tempo. The direction is not ground-breaking although it cant be critized much either. Only the performances of Ugur Yucel & Kenan Imirzalioglu & Onder save the movie from being a total Hollywood knock-off. All three of them succeed in staying Turkish while playing characters who we have seen for so many times in American movies. I believe that deserves nothing but praise.
Tattoo
(I) (2002)
Lacks logic
30 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The directorial debut of Schwentke is no-doubt a very well shot movie. It looks beautiful, ıts atmosphere is intriguing, the score and soundtrack is perfect match and the acting is above average.. whoever succeeds in shooting a movie that looks like this as a debut is deemed to be a very successful director. thats for sure.. His obssesion with reflections can be tiring from time to time but Schwentke handles this so delicately this trademark of his never feels repetitive..It is nearly impossible to think of someone who would not wonder about Schwentke's next project after watching Tattoo. So after so much praise lets come to the negatives. I will say only one thing: story.. It is full of nonsense. Minks a cop of years of experience on the streets can not locate his own daughter but the younger cop who is asked to help find her in a day.. and hey she was working as a bartender in a nightclub. But a 20 year veteran detective who seems to live to find his daughter can not locate her..? Actually I myself had difficulty in following the plot but the movie gives you the understanding that the police in Germany is really really incompetent--no offense to the Polizie it is just what the movie suggests..-- 12 deads, one dead detective and his daughter and still no one seems to care including the chief..? I think with a stronger screenplay this movie had the potential to be a classic especially with the direction of Schwentke.. A solid 7.5
Living & Dying
(2007)
Not as bad as you think
17 May 2008
I saw this DVD in my friends house and thought that this was a Turkish action movie with some Hollywood-not very big-names in it. Interested enough I decide to give it a shot later.. It was a tough to bear experience believe me. Then, after finally seeing the credits roll I tought 'We Turks really suck at Hollywood style film making.. This is an insult to the heist|hostage movie genre..' but then wait! I checked some names and no, they were not Turkish names and no, this was not a Turkish movie; on the contrary it was literally shot in America with an American director & crew! That made me thinking-again!- How on earth can you persuade names like Micheal Madsen, Edward Furlong or even Arnold Vosloo to take part in such a project? with money probably.. That kept me thinking further.. How can you raise such amount of money to offer them and a supposedly international cast? Then all my meditation paid off and I came to find the answer.By hiring the cheapest equipment and crew that you can find. And if you still have to difficulty in adjustin your budget then: by writing and directing the movie you are trying to produce-or vice versa I don't have any information on that-. So bottom line this is not a bad movie as everybody are so anxious to present as.. It makes you think -in my case even meditate- and there are a lot of movies outthere that doesn't give even that affect.. This one at least makes you think; It makes you wonder.. It leaves you with disbelief.. and then It makes you wonder again..
The Girls Next Door
(2005–2010)
Hef is da man
1 April 2008
I watched this show a couple of times but still have a couple of things to comment on. I see that some ppl here call these playboy girls prostitutes because they are living with a rich old guy. Well look around people and get real.. When a girl lets say 20 years old gets married with a 50 year old lawyer or a doctor I don't see a lot of people complaining.. Some religions-don't need to name them here- allow a man to marry with up to multiple women as long as he can provide for them-a task Hef is obviously up for- Throughout the history women always wanted to have a secure life and the institution marriage was always utilized for that purpose.(Remember the word family comes from the Latin word familia which amongst many meanings also come to mean a financial union) Why is it so hard for most people to understand that? Love is overrated anyway; after a couple of years the love between couples fades away to be replaced by something else; whatever you may call it but it is not love, something else- hopefully not spite or hate if you are lucky enough-. Anyone who is married can understand what I am trying to tell. So who cares if the girls are in for the money or the connections; who cares if a 80 year old guy wants to have fun in the dawn of his life? Is it really that bad? When you think of all the violence, hate and intolerance we are fed by the modern day TV, I think not. But no: The portrayal 3 hot blondes and a rich 80 year old hanging around in the mansion and living a rather uneventful life makes a lethal combination for the welfare of the society. I think I smell jealousy and envy
Frost: Portrait of a Vampire
(2003 Video)
Looks like a bad porn with no sex scenes
29 March 2008
Actually I watched this on a Turkish satelitte channel. Can you believe that?? Kudos to the producers of this movie; they succeeded to find some suckers that actually payed MONEY to this emberassingly bad bad movie. The lead is a 80s George Micheal on steroids who has a fetish for shades and what the hell is Gary Busey doing in this movie??really? He is the one responsible for me not turnin off this flick after 5 minutes thinking maybe something worthy will happen in the upcoming minutes but no no way. Nothing in no way will make you interested or pay attention throughout the whole running time. I couldn't stand more so turned it off before the final confrontation. The production values and the acting quality is on par with cheap porn movies-and I mean the really cheap ones not f.e the vivid ones-. But I have to give it to the director for finding someone to pay money for this one. Believe me after watchin this movie thats the only question that comes to your mind.. What kind of a producer in his right mind can be persuaded to invest in this flick?
Pars: Kiraz Operasyonu
(2007)
Not that bad
17 March 2008
This is not a bad action movie.. There are some nicely shot scenes-especially the final scene- and some moderate action. However especially the plot evolving around Atilla s brother is so badly written and acted after some time it becomes unbearable to watch. The portrayal of drug using high school students are so unrealistic with clichés borrowed from late 70s and early 80s Turkish anti-drug movies it makes you laugh-which was not the directors intetion I suspect-. And there is also a supposedly gang-rape scene and an aftermath fight which is so badly done it is becomes a painful experience for the viewer. I think a re-edit which include the cutting of all this sub-plot is a must. Guys smoke weed and act like they are on crack; girls take extacies and behave like they are on heroine.. Make up your minds for Gods sake.
Love in the Time of Cholera
(2007)
Bad make-up ruined it for me
17 March 2008
I didnot read the book so I don't know how much of the essence are captured in this movie. But I have to say that the make-up in the movie was so bad it ruined the whole experience for me.. And not only the make-up was bad but it also didn't seem to fit with the plot either. I mean we see Bardem s and Bratt s characters and are made to believe that they aged a lot. They look old and most interestingly they act old. They seem to have difficulty in walking or bending or even speaking. Then the movie makes us think some more years passed by and then we see them again however now it seems they had found an anti-aging clinic in colombia because not only they look younger or at least at the same age but also they seem to move in a much more dynamic fashion.. It is such a distracting flaw that after sometime you start to lose the ability to watch the movie without getting confused. And most interestingly some of the characters don't seem to age-like the mother and the uncle played by Eliozondo- The bottom line: If you think you can get past this flaw i think you may enjoy Love in the time of cholera. It is beautifully shot with a very good soundtrack and features a great actor in Javier Bardem.
The Marine
(2006)
Not That Bad
24 December 2007
First I have to admit i caught this flick on cable and didn't watch the first half and hour or something. This is a dumb movie no questions about that. the plot is weak- and i didn't need to watch the whole movie to understand that, it is soo obvious- the actions scenes; as one user rightly pointed out; is even more unbelievable then transporter 2 and except Robert Patrick and the guy that played dozer in matrix the cast is really weak- don't even get me started with the lead actor, Steven seagall is Sir Laurence Oliver compared to him-. However this is a strange movie, the director desperately tries to do something different and imo he succeeds in some occasions. There are some scenes that don't serve the plot but still enjoyable to watch. The scenes with the group of villains led by Rome-played by Patrick- are really fun and at times even funny. I admit this movie sucks in many ways but I also feel that this director if given the right material and funds can really make some interesting and enjoyable action movies.
Where the Truth Lies
(2005)
Not Atoms Best
8 December 2007
I expected something better from Egonyan.. But sayin' that he is a real artist and this movie is still better than most of the crap we are bombarded under the name of thriller or mystery flicks. The plot was interesting; the characters were three dimensional-most of them at least- however two things bugged me the whole movie. 1- the score; I felt it was unoriginal and cliché, like the template score 6 for mystery movies. 2- Alison Lohman was totally miscast. She is a beautiful talented woman but her presence made the part really unbelievable.Her part was pivotal and i think it didn't work out.Bottom line It is astrong movie however also over-hyped.
Submerged
(2005 Video)
Submerge this f###in sub
7 August 2005
I don't care what everyone thinks about this flick. It is the best movie I have watched this summer. And I am deadly serious.. You have to watch it over and over to really appreciate it.. It kind of grows on u... Trust me if u like action flicks watch this movie and you wont be disappointed. The story is interesting, Seagall delivers some great lines and the villains are very-well played.. This is not a masterpiece of course, full of factual inaccuracies (as some ppl from Uruguay rightfully pointed out) but I for myself don't expect such stuff from a Seagall movie anyway. Btw anyone has any idea why this movie is an UK-Bulgaria co-production? Is Hollywood done with Steven?
The Man Who Saved the World
(1982)
the only non-flying superman
24 July 2003
The main reason behind the greatness of this movie is the fact that they did not mean it to be so funny. Cuneyt Arkin- the star of turkplotation movies during the 70s and probably the only superman who prefers running over flying- is taking his role very seriously and that really adds some spice. There are so many scenes in this flick that really make no sense as well as some that will crack u up. i dont even want to get in the scenes borrowed -whatever that means in legal terms- The budget is really low but even that can not justify the awfulness of Dunyayi Kurtaran Adam. Come on; this not a cult movie, it is a disgrace and disrespect to the art of cinema. There are so many flaws in terms of screenplay, editing, acting, costumes and e.g that can not solely be explained by lack of funds but rather with lack of knowledge and effort. They did not even bother to write some dialogues that actually make sense. The villian wants human brains so that he can ... I really dont know, at one scene he shouts as `The earth will be mine` and then after some time he says `I will destroy the world`- dude just make up r mind- I agree that the movie itself is laughable and accordingly watchable however it is probable that this mainly is related to the fact that watching Dunyayi Kurtaran Adam makes you think that anyone can shoot a movie if they really feel like to. You do not necessariliy need a plot or actors that can act or authentic costumes to make your own masterpiece; just borrow some scenes from other movies -which is even easier these days u just need a dvd-recorder and a wmmovie maker- persuade some of r mates to feature and drop by the nearest toys r us or Warner shop. Then find a third world country where it can be screened and be ready to be named as the Ed Wood of the 21st century.
Rollerball
(2002)
I actually rented it with my own will
28 April 2003
A couple of days ago i dropped by the video store and came across to the remake of the 1975 Rollerball. Havin watched and quite liked the original one I did a dear mistake and checked out the cover of this remake. The director and the cast seemed ok and the music was from Eric Serra so I willingly rented it. I didnt expect a master piece as I hadnt rated the original so highly anyway but this one sucked beyond imagination. I can not even call this one as a movie since throughout the whole running time it seemed more like a prolonged trailer to me. I wont talk more about how bad this thing is as other ýmbd users had covered it all. But i have to admit i quiet liked the night-vision style shoot and the band that played during the competiton (or whatever it can be named as) Some may have said that "it is so bad that it is actually good" my answer to such comments: "NO, it so bad that it is just plain bad" Stay way in all circumstances unless u dont mind throwin r 1.5 hours to garbage.
Don't Say a Word
(2001)
Love and hate
27 January 2003
I see myself as a rather objective person, at least tryin to be one. Accordingly, i take hollywood-style film making seriously and try to analyze US main stream(The French started to follow the footsteps of their American counterparts on this as well)movies in regard with the social,economic and geographical notions of the viewers that form the main target of Hollywood studios. I respect the need of feel good movies for a society that tackles crime,abuse of drugs and alienation on a regular basis.However when I see the butchering of a good idea and a fine cast, solely with the purpose of making the movie more watchable for US audiences, I cant help myself to think that I wont be able to watch a decent, believable mainstream Hollywood movie in the coming years.Lets take this one for example;the polt starts extremely interesting and gribbing in the first half of the movie just to become totaly absurd and laughable in the second part.Actually, the movie itself is like two different movies in one. The first part is a pyschological thriller and the second part is actionish!.The movie is full of stereo-types(in addition some characters are so under developed we cant really name them as stereo-types,they are just plain extras. eg the characters played by Platt and Esposito)It is also full of nonsense acts committed by the villians, a point which i dont intend to dwell on since it has been analyzed thorough enough by the other commentators. To sum up: Dont get me wrong, i am not trying to totally slam this movie nor have i an anti-Hollywood stance, it is just that I really expected something different from this one but was frustrated again in the end. Will this stop me from payin to see Hollywood products?Hell No!
The Mask of Zorro
(1998)
Who is the hero here?
31 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS!
What i dont get about this movie is how come Diego dela Vega and his apprentice A.Murrieta are presented as saviors of the people . Both of them pursuit revenge and the only reason why they seem to get involved in the events is their personal vendettas, whereas the villain of the movie Rafael Montero has such a broader vision in contrast with the two zorros pursuing to buy his way for the formation of an independent California. He may not seem so democratic and liberal as regards to his employment policy but can someone say his methods were so harsh compared with many of the formers of modern states. His objective was to form an autonomous independent state where the people who had been despised by Americans, Mexicans and the Spanish Dons could identify themselves as Californians.Don Rafael intended to give the people not only a distinct identity free from all the stipulations and oppressions of the colonialist powers but also the opportunity to obtain a new political status in the form of Californian citizenship. The two zorros try by all means to prevent this scheme from taking place while they do not even think about an alternative plan for the future of the villagers. Thats a bit self-centered attitude taking into account that during the whole movie we are left to witness the poverty and misery these people are experiencing yet we do not feel that De la vega and Murietta do even care about the faith of them. The only thing they are after is to make Don Rafael and his henchman Captain Love pay for their evil acts.So at the end of the movie when our heroes are done with the villains, their achievement seems so insignificant. I myself had sympathized with Don Montero notwithstanding the filmmakers' efforts of justifying his wickedness by portraying his henchman as a super-evil in Northern Cavalier Uniforms. He may be a pure machiavellian but at least he is a man who can step back and look at the big picture. When you think about the period when the events take place, Don Montero was in the brink of changing history but thanks to our zorros he never made it. The world would be a totally different place should an Independent Californian Republic was formed.But instead Zorro and his new wife lived happily ever after with their new born child!!!
What i dont get about this movie is how come Diego dela Vega and his apprentice A.Murrieta are presented as saviors of the people . Both of them pursuit revenge and the only reason why they seem to get involved in the events is their personal vendettas, whereas the villain of the movie Rafael Montero has such a broader vision in contrast with the two zorros pursuing to buy his way for the formation of an independent California. He may not seem so democratic and liberal as regards to his employment policy but can someone say his methods were so harsh compared with many of the formers of modern states. His objective was to form an autonomous independent state where the people who had been despised by Americans, Mexicans and the Spanish Dons could identify themselves as Californians.Don Rafael intended to give the people not only a distinct identity free from all the stipulations and oppressions of the colonialist powers but also the opportunity to obtain a new political status in the form of Californian citizenship. The two zorros try by all means to prevent this scheme from taking place while they do not even think about an alternative plan for the future of the villagers. Thats a bit self-centered attitude taking into account that during the whole movie we are left to witness the poverty and misery these people are experiencing yet we do not feel that De la vega and Murietta do even care about the faith of them. The only thing they are after is to make Don Rafael and his henchman Captain Love pay for their evil acts.So at the end of the movie when our heroes are done with the villains, their achievement seems so insignificant. I myself had sympathized with Don Montero notwithstanding the filmmakers' efforts of justifying his wickedness by portraying his henchman as a super-evil in Northern Cavalier Uniforms. He may be a pure machiavellian but at least he is a man who can step back and look at the big picture. When you think about the period when the events take place, Don Montero was in the brink of changing history but thanks to our zorros he never made it. The world would be a totally different place should an Independent Californian Republic was formed.But instead Zorro and his new wife lived happily ever after with their new born child!!!
Another 9½ Weeks
(1997)
Rourke wasted again
29 December 2000
This movie has got only two things to offer:an aging Mickey Rourke and a good soundtrack.There is supposed to be two main characters but Angie Everhart does anything but acting.Combining with the imperfection of the storyline,the failure to give her part a believable depth make the story look so pretentious.However Love in Paris slightly survives thanks to the acting of Mickey Rourke.He gives a rememberable performance as John Gray who,after years,still lives in the past and is unable to forget Elisabeth - played by Kim Basinger in the first part.After his affair with Elisabeth,he is now a man bored of life and in the brink of a suicide who has nothing to hold on till he finds out a way to alter his biggest mistake.So he flies to Paris hoping for a new life.Except the strong performance from Rourke playing John Gray a man who had turned out to be a vulnerable romantic obsessed with the woman he let go from being the fantasy seeking player he had used to be,this movie has nothing else.No acting,no intelligence,no style - although there is a modest effort to form one - and most importantly no intention to tell anything.Just another example of wasting such a good actor.But at least it can make you think about the chances you missed,the misjudgments you did in your life.It sure made me do.
Tell Your Friends